Taser International sued by man left with brain damage after being electrocuted

Published time: December 05, 2012 17:37
Edited time: December 05, 2012 21:37
Reuters/Bazuki Muhammad

Taser International is being forced to defend itself in court this week after a man filed a lawsuit against the electroshock gun company, claiming he went into cardiac arrest as a result of being shot in the chest by a Taser.

­Colin Fahy, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, was shot in the chest with a Taser by police responding to a domestic disturbance complaint at his home in St. Louis. Police Officer Karen Menendez claims she used the Taser on Fahy, who was drunk and high, after he lunged at her and one other officer, according to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Menendez shot the gun twice, delivering one 25-second shock and one 5-second shot. Fahy went into cardiac arrest soon afterwards, which the plaintiff claims was a direct result of the stuns from the Taser.

“On December 7, 2007, St. Louis police officers used the X26 Taser on Fahy, causing him to go intro ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest,” read court documents signed by United States District Judge Catherine Perry in 2010.

After falling to the kitchen floor, the teenager was handcuffed by the officers. At this point he was blue in the face and unresponsive. Fahy was subsequently hospitalized, suffered cardiac arrest for 30 minutes and was on life support for weeks. The young man now suffers from permanent brain damage and struggles with short-term and working memory.

Taser International cautions law enforcement on the potential risks involved with shooting a person’s chest. But these warnings are new: on the day Fahy was shot with a Taser, no such warnings existed. Lawyers are expected to debate on whether such warnings would have made a difference on that December night.

William Dowd, one of Fahy’s lawyers, on Tuesday referenced a study that showed Taser shots to the chest could interfere with the heart’s rhythm.

Fahy is seeking claims against Taser International for design defect, strict liability – failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, and negligently supplying a dangerous instrumentality for supplier’s business purposes.

The company has also come under increased scrutiny this year for its potential harm to victims. A June 4 video by the California Highway Patrol shows police using a Taser three times on 50-year-old Angela Jones, who subsequently became unconscious, lost her pulse and had suffered cardiac arrest.

In April, the New York Times reported a study that shows the electrical shocks delivered by Tasers “can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death”. The study analyzed records from the cases of eight people who suffered cardiac arrest after being shocked by the Taser X26 – the same weapon that shocked Fahy. Seven of those people died.

The study claims Tasers can sometimes set off irregular heart rhythms that cause cardiac arrest.

“This is a scientific fact. The national debate should now center on whether the risk of sudden death with Tasers is low enough to warrant widespread use by law enforcement,” Dr. Byron Lee, a cardiologist and director of the electrophysiology laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco, told the Times.

John Jerry Glas, a lawyer representing Taser International in this week’s trial, said no such risks were known in 2007. Glas also said the studies that were referenced in court said it would take 15 times the normal Taser charge to affect the heart enough to potentially cause cardiac arrest.

Experts representing the company will argue that Fahy’s handcuffing in an already-panicked state could have led to the subsequent health complications, according to the report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Comments (8)

Docc (unregistered) 12.12.2012 05:38

Police Officers often hide behind their gang symbology (their shields). Official Immunity is why they cannot be sued in their personal capacity, because they are "on duty" as an Officer. Gangs are just that - gangs. I suppose I can say Crips are a fraternal order, or Bloods are an organization, or The Mexican Mafia is a publicly-funded army. (((SMH))) - However, as Officers in The Public Trust, they can be found in violation of just that. The Anti-Trust Division Of The United States Justice Department Internal Affairs gets to give violators in that arena a "legal adjustment by The Bureau. To use sadistic methods and tactics to inflict harm upon a "suspect" is malicious. It's what you can prove though. More citizens should film law enforcement incidents. I was beaten without provocation simply because an Officer profiled me, and assumed I was a culprit, then just vented his frustrations on me. This was wrong, and it was caught on film, that is - until the cop seized my friend's phone by threatening him with a gun.

0

Undo

Mere (unregistered) 11.12.2012 16:57

Pretty sure your example of a ladder breaking is completely irrelevant.  As long as you were using the ladder in the appropriate context that it was meant for, then actually yes you could sue them because it is reasonable that when you buy a ladder it shouldn't break while you're using it.  Unless their is a weight warning which is exactly what the taser issue is about.  Their should have been a warning to officers that if a taser is shot at a person's chest, it could cause serious damage to the victim.  A hazardous weapon should have accurate warnings and that is not "bull shi*.  Also, I agree the McDonald's coffee incident is a little ridiculous, but they did serve their coffee 50 degrees hotter than a number of similar establishments that served coffee for no reason.

0

Undo

Jesse (unregistered) 06.12.2012 15:59

Jacob (unregistered) wrote in #5
Yah so next time my ladder breaks, well i guess i'll just sue the ladder company because they made that object if that object does something wrong then the people who made it are responsible?  ridiculous!  Why don't people grow up and stop grubbing for easy money whenever they get the chance.  "they didn't say the coffee was hot they owe me a million bucks"  bull shi* the only thing anyone owes you is hit on the head yeah but when there isnt a product warning, and someone suffers possible permanent BRAIN DAMAGE, someone is responsible, and the company put itself in a bad situation because of the action they did not take.

0

Undo

View all comments (8)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us